Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV01256, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01256    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Victor Coronado and Philip Dimaggio filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).  On June 16, 2023, the Court granted the motion in part.  The Court also approved the parties’ agreement that the PMK deposition take place on July 20, 2023.  Counsel for all parties were present at the hearing.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs attempted to confirm the deposition start time via email, and on June 27, 2023, Plaintiffs served a notice of the Court’s June 16, 2023 ruling.  (Rabieian Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiffs again sent an email requesting confirmation of the 11:00 a.m. start time for the deposition on July 20.  (Rabieian Decl. ¶ 5.)  On July 19, 2023, Defendant’s counsel Cameron Major responded, “There was no agreement between our offices that the PMK Deposition in this matter would proceed on July 20th.”  (Rabieian Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 5.)  Although Cameron Major did not appear at the June 16, 2023 hearing where the parties agreed to a July 20 deposition date, Xylon D. Quezada appeared for him and on behalf of Defendant.  Plaintiffs responded to this email, and several hours later, Defendant stated that it would not be producing its PMK.  (Rabieian Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  On July 20, 2023, Plaintiffs took an affidavit of nonappearance at the deposition.  (Rabieian Decl. ¶ 10.)

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for monetary, issue, and evidentiary sanctions.

A court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts must be taken as established in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (b).)  A court may also impose an issue sanction prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.  (Ibid.)

“Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party.  Accordingly, sanctions should be tailored to serve that remedial purpose, should not put the moving party in a better position than he would otherwise have been had he obtained the requested discovery, and should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct.”  (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)

On September 29, 2023, the day after filing its opposition to this motion, Defendant offered October 5, 2023 for the PMK deposition.  (Rabieian Reply Decl. ¶ 5.)  On October 3, 2023, Defendant canceled the October 5, 2023 deposition, and the parties rescheduled the deposition for October 11, 2023, the day before the hearing on this motion.  (Rabieian Reply Decl. ¶ 7.)

Because Defendant is now cooperating with rescheduling the PMK deposition (which was scheduled to occur the day before this hearing), the request for issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

However, Defendant appears to have reengaged in scheduling discussions and agreed to new dates only in response to this motion.  Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,610.00 to Plaintiffs within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 12th day of October 2023